Civ 5 Confirmed Features
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
- Status
shootersharkey
Chieftain
While it's interesting to try to figure out details of upcoming CIV V such as "will there be a Viking civ to play"? or "will Ivory be a resource"? I'm more intrigued by the game play comments that have been made by Jon Shafer.
What do we know about Jon Shafer? First of all, he's an accomplish CIV modder -- that speaks well for him. Secondly, he's studied History academically -- that's probably a plus too. Thirdly, he's really young -- not a bad thing, but his programming chops are newly earned. He joined Firaxis in 2005 and seems to have worked on CIV III Conquests and then all the flavors of CIV IV. Finally, if Sid trusts him with a project as important to Firaxis as CIV V is, that probably is an endorsement we should accept.
Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed. If you imagine a game with many of CIV IV's non-military conventions coupled with a PG style military game, perhaps that's what we should be expecting.
From the Eurogamer interview, I'd say dumbing down for the console is not really what they are doing. Rather it seems they are trying to maintain the current level of complexity:
"Eurogamer: When you add a new feature to Civ, are you aware that it's a pretty dense game anyway, and something has to be taken out?
Jon Shafer: With Civ V, we've recognised the need to keep the complexity the same as Civ IV. Of course, you can't just keep adding things, it wouldn't be manageable for the players. We want to keep the hardcore players, but we also have to keep expanding the number of players who're going to enjoy Civilization."
What do we know about Jon Shafer? First of all, he's an accomplish CIV modder -- that speaks well for him. Secondly, he's studied History academically -- that's probably a plus too. Thirdly, he's really young -- not a bad thing, but his programming chops are newly earned. He joined Firaxis in 2005 and seems to have worked on CIV III Conquests and then all the flavors of CIV IV. Finally, if Sid trusts him with a project as important to Firaxis as CIV V is, that probably is an endorsement we should accept.
Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed. If you imagine a game with many of CIV IV's non-military conventions coupled with a PG style military game, perhaps that's what we should be expecting.
From the Eurogamer interview, I'd say dumbing down for the console is not really what they are doing. Rather it seems they are trying to maintain the current level of complexity:
"Eurogamer: When you add a new feature to Civ, are you aware that it's a pretty dense game anyway, and something has to be taken out?
Jon Shafer: With Civ V, we've recognised the need to keep the complexity the same as Civ IV. Of course, you can't just keep adding things, it wouldn't be manageable for the players. We want to keep the hardcore players, but we also have to keep expanding the number of players who're going to enjoy Civilization."
techathon
Member
Game Informer confirms a icon notification system like total war
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Warning! Semi-long critical post.
While I welcome the initiative to take on the SoD problem then going to the other extreme and allowing ONLY 1 unit per tile/plot is going to cause more problems than it solves in the long run IMO. I am certain that a better solution could be found with just a minimum of extra thought.
To begin with then it sounds like an unwelcome return to the days where you could sign Open Border agreements and then block any friendly units from entering and exploring your territory with a few single units in a few tight spots.
Another consequences of the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" concept is that armies will now require more tiles/plots to be able operate properly, making semi-accurate recreations of historical battles almost impossible on any but the largest of maps. Lets just hope that ciV is at least going to be able to handle much larger maps much more effeciently than ever before.
It also seems to play havoc with the need to plan for Naval operations, since land units now simply transform themselves into naval transports whenever they have to travel across water (now wouldn't that have made D-Day a lot easier). And before anyone claims that it might have been done to help the AI then surely the hierarchical AI planning structure is designed to allow the AI to be able to plan ahead for contingencies such as large scale naval operations? However - playing along with the "1 unit per tile/plot" concept limitations then - assuming that Fighters stationed on Carriers (and in cites?) are going to be represented by some kind of Promotion for each Fighter then I don't see any reason why transport type ships shouldn't be able to function in the same manner when carrying land units.
Sadly, if it is hardcoded that only 1 unit can exist in each tile/plot then there goes the claim that ciV will be more modable than ever before. And even if it is not hardcoded then it is going to require an almost impossibly massive amount of work for any modder to make ciV function with multiple units per tile/plot (rewiring the AI alone to handle this would probably be a years-long project).
Cities with HPs sound like a reasonable enough concept, but the fact that you cannot garrison even a single unit inside a city sounds like a major blunder to me. Unless I am misunderstanding how this is going to work then while you can make a unit 'join' the city to bolster the city's HP then none of the specific defensive abilities of the unit come into play, but perhaps cities actually work like units now and units assisiting them are added like some kind of Promotion? It is still a bit unclear to me exactly how this is going to work.
On top of all that then the exclusion of Religions and Espionage is another piece of bad news, and while I would agree that both of these features was never implemented all that well in previous versions of Civ, it strikes me as defeatist to cut them out entirely instead of rethinking and implementing them in renewed versions.
And yes, most of these omissions can probably be modded in. Just don't forget that not only will someone have to mod in the mechanisms themselves, but someone will also have to come up with some comprehensive code to make the AI aware of - and how to handle - those modded mechanisms properly.
All in all then many of the changes to ciV leaves me with he impression that the goal has been to move ciV closer towards being a warsimulator rather than a nationbuilder game. And perhaps the slogan should not be "The most moddable version of Civ ever", but rather "The version of Civ requiring the most modding ever" - and that is assuming that all parts that are going to be desired to be modded are even modable at all and not blocked by hardcoding.
Before I end up sounding ALL negative about the changes then I DO like the change to Hexagonal tiles/plots, the creeping culture concept, the implementation of proper ranged support (which would also work with more than 1 unit per tile/plot btw ... with reduced range ofc), the City States concept (although I think that it could be expanded by adding a medium sized Kingdom status as well for neutrals with more than 1 city) and the hierarchical AI planning levels (in fact that sounds pretty close to how I would have done it).
While I welcome the initiative to take on the SoD problem then going to the other extreme and allowing ONLY 1 unit per tile/plot is going to cause more problems than it solves in the long run IMO. I am certain that a better solution could be found with just a minimum of extra thought.
To begin with then it sounds like an unwelcome return to the days where you could sign Open Border agreements and then block any friendly units from entering and exploring your territory with a few single units in a few tight spots.
Another consequences of the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" concept is that armies will now require more tiles/plots to be able operate properly, making semi-accurate recreations of historical battles almost impossible on any but the largest of maps. Lets just hope that ciV is at least going to be able to handle much larger maps much more effeciently than ever before.
It also seems to play havoc with the need to plan for Naval operations, since land units now simply transform themselves into naval transports whenever they have to travel across water (now wouldn't that have made D-Day a lot easier). And before anyone claims that it might have been done to help the AI then surely the hierarchical AI planning structure is designed to allow the AI to be able to plan ahead for contingencies such as large scale naval operations? However - playing along with the "1 unit per tile/plot" concept limitations then - assuming that Fighters stationed on Carriers (and in cites?) are going to be represented by some kind of Promotion for each Fighter then I don't see any reason why transport type ships shouldn't be able to function in the same manner when carrying land units.
Sadly, if it is hardcoded that only 1 unit can exist in each tile/plot then there goes the claim that ciV will be more modable than ever before. And even if it is not hardcoded then it is going to require an almost impossibly massive amount of work for any modder to make ciV function with multiple units per tile/plot (rewiring the AI alone to handle this would probably be a years-long project).
Cities with HPs sound like a reasonable enough concept, but the fact that you cannot garrison even a single unit inside a city sounds like a major blunder to me. Unless I am misunderstanding how this is going to work then while you can make a unit 'join' the city to bolster the city's HP then none of the specific defensive abilities of the unit come into play, but perhaps cities actually work like units now and units assisiting them are added like some kind of Promotion? It is still a bit unclear to me exactly how this is going to work.
On top of all that then the exclusion of Religions and Espionage is another piece of bad news, and while I would agree that both of these features was never implemented all that well in previous versions of Civ, it strikes me as defeatist to cut them out entirely instead of rethinking and implementing them in renewed versions.
And yes, most of these omissions can probably be modded in. Just don't forget that not only will someone have to mod in the mechanisms themselves, but someone will also have to come up with some comprehensive code to make the AI aware of - and how to handle - those modded mechanisms properly.
All in all then many of the changes to ciV leaves me with he impression that the goal has been to move ciV closer towards being a warsimulator rather than a nationbuilder game. And perhaps the slogan should not be "The most moddable version of Civ ever", but rather "The version of Civ requiring the most modding ever" - and that is assuming that all parts that are going to be desired to be modded are even modable at all and not blocked by hardcoding.
Before I end up sounding ALL negative about the changes then I DO like the change to Hexagonal tiles/plots, the creeping culture concept, the implementation of proper ranged support (which would also work with more than 1 unit per tile/plot btw ... with reduced range ofc), the City States concept (although I think that it could be expanded by adding a medium sized Kingdom status as well for neutrals with more than 1 city) and the hierarchical AI planning levels (in fact that sounds pretty close to how I would have done it).
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
It has been stated that friendly units can move through each other.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
That still doesn't prevent blocking - in fact that just adds another annoying point.
Friendly units can then move past your front line defences and end up in a tile/plot preventing you from being able to reinforce/support your frontline properly.
Unless of course the 1 unit per tile/plot rule is actually 1 unit per nation per tile/plot?
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
Heard a rumor from my friend about that, couldn't name a source (Or in other words, I have no idea if this is even close to the truth so don't quote me on it) though so I didn't submit it as information. Makes sense though.
you'll sure be able to do the same.That was mentioned in a spanish magazine, but we only have a google translation :/.
Another thing from an older article i haven't seen yet here:
Confirmed...maybe
.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Yes ofc, but the point is that it shouldn't be possible to block your 'friends' like that at all (by accident, stupid AI or deliberate maliciousness).
It is a major step backwards from cIV.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Hmm, I am not sure I follow you ... they won't revert back to what?
To the way of cIV?
Or is there new information that they already abandoned the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism and that is the mechanism they aren't likely to revert back to?
To the way of cIV?
Or is there new information that they already abandoned the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism and that is the mechanism they aren't likely to revert back to?
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Guys, a thought.
Each civ has its own colored borders, yes?
I took this into consideration, and while looking over the screencaps, I saw 4 cities using the far east asian city set with different border colors.
Mongolia, China, Japan, ???.
Each civ has its own colored borders, yes?
I took this into consideration, and while looking over the screencaps, I saw 4 cities using the far east asian city set with different border colors.
Mongolia, China, Japan, ???.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
India would more likely use the middle eastern city set.
I figure the 4th asian civ is probably either the semi-confirmed Siam, or maybe the Khmer empire (which could have been mistranslated as Siam.)
McRoos
Warlord
What do we know about Jon Shafer?
Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed.
---
That's amaizing, as PG and CIV are the only 2 games I ever played.
The 1 unit per hex thing does not seem to fit to me, but maybe it is just a matter of getting used to it.
I'm looking forward to another great CIV game !!
Jon said in several interviews (Eurogamer, GamePro) that he really liked playing Panzer General (A DOS game, published in 1994 - or perhaps he meant Panzer General II, a Windows game, published in 1997 -- both are great classic games) and admired the game mechanics of that game. He also said he felt he wanted to move CIV away from the current simpleminded tactics of "build a SOD and then go capture cities". He wants to get the fighting out of the cities and into the countryside. The one military unit per hex, and the ranged fire are conventions straight from PG, so I think we can also expect concepts such as units exerting control into adjacent hexes and units taking damage and being forced to retreat rather than simply get destroyed.
---
That's amaizing, as PG and CIV are the only 2 games I ever played.
The 1 unit per hex thing does not seem to fit to me, but maybe it is just a matter of getting used to it.
I'm looking forward to another great CIV game !!
Has anyone seen anything new, even just repetition of stuff we already know? - Status
